Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?

self ^ | self

[watsonfellow]

In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.

And I do not mean indifference (less pro life threads etc) but an outright hostility at pro life and other social conservative causes.

Am I alone in thinking this?

In particular, notice the responses to the thread concerning the recent request by social conservative groups to the FCC to reign in Fox's racey primetime programs.

I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists and libertarians, and if so, perhaps it would be better for social conservatives to find their own site.

[Cogadh na Sith]

I don't agree with your needlessly narrow definition.

[Roscoe]

1. So you don't like none of them-there Jew-fellers in yer club?

[Backwards, as usual. Libertarianism wants racial discrimination in housing and business legalized.]

2. As it should be.

So the first post was rank hypocrisy. That's what I figured.

[toupsie]

Barney Frank and Joycelyn Elders both support the legalization of drugs.

So does:

• William F. Buckley
• John Fund
• Nobel laureate Milton Friedman
• Former Secretary of State George Shultz
• Several Reagan-appointed federal judges

So its not just your favorite groups to bash, African-Americans and homosexuals, that support legalization but a bunch of white guys too.

However, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt supported your vision of drug prohibition. That New Deal mentality!

[Reagan Man]

... and most conservatives would prefer to move our government back is scale and scope to this earlier period.

Not quite right. Most conservatives strongly support a national government that has a reduced scope of power and influence, one that is smaller and less intrusive into the lives of its people,... Most conservatives don't believe we should return to the exact government which existed in the 1790`s. I, for one, don't believe that is the right approach at all. That simply wouldn't work in todays world. It's totally unrealistic.

Only absolutists, like those found in the Libertarian Party would enjoy such a country. Libertarian's support the dismantling of the current structure of both America's military armed forces and criminal justice system and they they would allow unlimited immigration and unrestricted trade. On top of that, libertarians would legalize prostitution and drugs. Only libertarian's support this form of government, where chaos and anarchy reign supreme.

Conservatives aren't anti-government and don't want to see America become a third world country either.

... the Federalist Papers do explain what the Founders meant, and so they have a lot to say about how the Repulic is run, unless you want the Constitution to be a living document, with meanings that change over time.

I understand that the Founding Fathers speak through the Federalist Papers. My point was, the Federalist Papers aren't legal documents and therefore have no bearing on the actual wording of the Constitution. I don't like this term living document, but the Constitution was created with the ability for it to be ammended, from time to time. That in and of itself, indicates to a limited degree, that the Constitution is a document that changes over time.

[headsonpikes]

I guess the question becomes...

Are you in favor of Constitutional government because it's a rational and just system of government, or simply because it's 'traditional'?

I'm a conservative who is ALSO libertarian; I see NO contradiction in that stance.

The kind of 'social conservative' triumphalistic bullying I note in many posters is mercifully absent in yours. For that, thanks. ;^)

[breakem]

re 262 You argument about the use of givernment makes you more of a liberal than a conservative. It seems you have an idea about how society should be or could be better and you want the government to put it into effect. This is what liberals do with education, welfare, employment and on and on. Many conservatives call it social engineering and it is what you and others here propose to do.

[OWK]

I missed the hypocrisy part.

I didn't question his right to exclude Jews.

I questioned his exclusion of Jews.

Maybe this difference was a bit too much for you to grasp.

[Roscoe]

So do you oppose limited liability or not? Don't tell me you're afraid to say.

[steve-b]

The Second Law states that all physcial systems go from order to disorder

Before-and-After image of restored artwork overturns (Ol' Sparky's misunderstanding of) the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

The Nobel committee can contact me here via FReepmail.

[OWK]

So do you oppose limited liability or not? Don't tell me you're afraid to say.

Huh?

When did that become a subject of discussion.

Are we in the same conversation?

[steve-b]

Nobel Prize for sure!

If they gave out a Nobel Prize for obfuscation, Clinton wouldn't have had to try to buy himself the Peace prize.

[Abundy]

steve_b (Making a logical argument) - The broadcaster has the legitmate property right

Roscoe (making a circular argument) - They expressly and explicitly waive such rights.

Ah, the moronic Roscoe, who couldn't think outside of a box - even if he was a mime.

No waiver is found to be legitimate when coerced. Didn't it occur to you that the broadcasters are FORCED to waive their rights under threat of Federal Prosecution because the NannyState has decided it must regulate? No, didn't think so, because you never met a Federal Law you didn't love.

Douchebag.

[eno_]

Jeez, somebody HAS to point out that limited liability, as in an LLC, applies to investors, not officers. Become a Lloyds "name" and your liability is unlimited, even though you are not an officer.

[Paulus Invictus]

Darn! I knew it was narrow, but I was "hurried". I though I saw some heavy Libertarian and DumocRAT linebackers heading for me as I dropped back to pass.

[John Farson]

We have finally done it!

We have a Libertarian vs Conservative/Catholic vs Protestant/Pro-WoD vs anti-WoD/evolution vs creationism/Neo-Con vs Paleo-Con thread WITH Moose and Cheese!!!!

It is a sign.

This thread is approaching critical mass, and is on the verge of exploding and killing us all. And you want to drag in Harry Potter to push us over the edge ;)

LMAO!

[theoverseer]

Social conservatives are the greatest enemies the conservative movement must overcome. We won the Cold War. Most people, except Castro and the cultural elite, understand the benefits of the free market. September 11 blew away the liberals' idea of appeasement and peace-love crap. Here's the final frontier: separating the conservative movement from the modern-day puritans and busybodies.

Look who the social conservatives align themselves with. Jerry Falwell, who has said such profound things as "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew," "the Anti-Christ will be Jewish" and has led attacks on Tinky Winky and Lilith Fair, not to mention claiming that September 11 happened due to our immorality; Tim LaHaye, who despite getting mainstream success with his "Left Behind" series, is no better than a paranoid conspiratorialist; Pat Buchanan, whose desire to go back to the 1950s while launching attacks on non-eastern cultures and Israel.

Being associated with such people does a grave disservice to social conservatives. It's pretty obvious that conservatives have shown that economic freedom is the best way to do things, and yet social conservatives refuse to extend that philosophy to our private lives and tastes.

So "Boston Public" is a racy, sexual show? Don't watch it. Don't like adult entertainment in your town? Don't patronize the business, but don't harass those who do.

I happen to work at a religious university. One of the priests here said something I'll never forget. "When it comes down to it, we all have to explain ourselves to God. What we do is between us and Him."

[Cogadh na Sith]

Heh Heh! OK.

I dunno, maybe all I can say is "I don't know what a social conservative is, but I know one when I see one."

[eno_]

For a Reagan Man, you sure are not familiar with New Federalism. Take the federal government, slice up the unconstitutional functions and pass them to the states, let the fedgov go back to what it was, and the states decide how much of the mess to keep. No train wreck. No soldier's widows thrown out into the snow. No Libertarian La La Land.

[Dales]

I am with WIMom on this one.

Even during the primaries, when we had the McCainiacs and the Keyesters and the Bushies and the Brigadiers duking it out, it was nothing like I am seeing recently.

And I am seeing more and more names posting crap, and they are names I have never seen before. Many of them had signon dates long ago, but if you use google or anything, you can't find them.